Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish
Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

Nope, I'm saying that eyewitness testimony gathered some 7 years after an event by a bunch of amateur investigators

The only thing amateur about CIT’s work, is they were not employed to do the investigation; Other than that, they handled the investigations adeptly and professionally.

with no credentials is notoriously unreliable.

What credentials would you like them to have?

Would you like them to work for WUSA Channel 9 in Washington?

Your logic is failing.

Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

This is the third time i have asked you this question, are you incapable of answering it?

[edit on 12/14/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by scott3x


Re the missing footpeg on the camera mast:

Sorry, that's not an issue I've dealt with before and honestly there's only so many details I want to deal with.

I feel every detail needs to be examined many many times in order to put together a valid idea of what happened with particular emphasis on the physical evidence because every piece provides a frozen moment that doesn't change over time unlike less tangible things like witness accounts.

You made mention of the downed poles earlier that came across as if you believe the poles were only snapped off at the frangible bases which is not the case. They were actually severed completely at the point of wing contact as well which is the reason for them falling the way they did not far from their original location. I don't have a pic uploaded to post just now but they abound here and everywhere so it shouldn't be too hard to find a few.

I think I'm relatively unbiased, but I don't think that we should get into a 'you're biased' discussion. I think we should stick to the evidence.

Apologies for a bad arrangement of words there. I wasn't saying you're biassed, just that your sources are biassed toward supporting their theory seemingly regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

Re the total lack of physical evidence in support of the flyover:

Ofcourse there is. For a start, there's the above thread I just pointed you towards. There's also the thread on Lloyd's light pole that I've mentioned previously. I found another thread concerning the light pole, this one from SPreston, who I have found has some some really good investigative work here at ATS:

What I saw there is an attempt to convert physical evidence into a new substance I'll call 'anti-evidence' but it does not change the evidence itself and certainly doesn't generate evidence of the opposite polarity.
Let's see if enough anti-evidence can be produced to nullify the real stuff - I really doubt it.

Lloyd is a good example: He and his cab were there (surely indisputable) in the wrong place and time as far as personal safety is concerned but that was out of his control. The cab has damage consistant with his account (windshield, dash, front and rear seats) and the pole is right there with the cab which he states was pulled out of the cab after it came to a standstill. Incredulity over minute details (like the bonnet seemingly undamaged) does not nullify the whole picture though and he has not confessed to anything other than what he's been saying all along IE the pole went through the windshield and he's extremely lucky to have survived it. A thought experiment: try deleting Lloyd and cab from the scene (like he had a flat tyre down the road or something along those lines) so he simply wasn't there and no vehicles were hit by pieces of light poles and fittings - would it have made any difference?

Can you show me a single piece of physical evidence supporting a flyover that hasn't been manufactured by the sources you've been quoting from?

The only one I can think of is the original decode of the FDR which was the basis of the 'G calc' fiasco but that has turned into a train wreck with another 4 seconds of data (an incomplete frame) being exposed within that same FDR record which shows a far lower final altitude reading among other things. The only option now for adherance to the 'NOC flyover' theory is to somehow throw that evidence away with all the rest leaving absolutely nothing

Not to sound self-righteous or anything but I believe I haven't used info from sources pro or con to any theory in reaching my conclusions.

With regard to the witnesses I quoted just 2 that do not describe either NOC or flyover or right banking and there are many others describing the exact same thing IE through the area of the damaged poles banking left and impacting the building. I see attempts to discard those accounts for reasons like 'works for the govt', 'conflict of interest', 'member of a secret sect', etc and the list goes on. Some are a bit ambiguous due to their location and either flightpath could be made to fit their description due to reasons like parallax and those are the ones being 'interpreted' for you.

I'll stick to my own interpretations.

EDIT - typos as usual


[edit on 14/12/2009 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by JPhish
Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

Nope, I'm saying that eyewitness testimony gathered some 7 years after an event by a bunch of amateur investigators with no credentials is notoriously unreliable.

This is the third time i have asked you this question, are you incapable of answering it?

I've already answered it. Are you incapable of reading English?

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish
Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

Nope, I'm saying that eyewitness testimony gathered some 7 years after an event by a bunch of amateur investigators

The only thing amateur about CIT’s work, is they were not employed to do the investigation; Other than that, they handled the investigations adeptly and professionally.

with no credentials is notoriously unreliable.

What credentials would you like them to have?

Would you like them to work for WUSA Channel 9 in Washington?

Your logic is failing.

I've already answered it. Are you incapable of reading English?

I'm being certain you are sure of your answer, so you don't cry later on.

Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

YES or NO?

[edit on 12/14/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

YES or NO?

You asked me what I am SAYING, I am telling you what I am SAYING.

I am SAYING that eyewitness testimony gathered some 7 years after an event by a bunch of amateur investigators with no credentials is notoriously unreliable.

Do you understand what I am SAYING now JPhish? Would remedial English help you understand what I am SAYING, JPhish?

I'm being certain you are sure of your answer, so you don't cry later on.

I'm very sure of my answer, but unless you can show me the credible evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events there won't be a "later on".

reply to post by JPhish

Come on JPhish, you want to convince me that something else happened at the Pentagon, just show me the credible evidence that supports how Lloyde's cab ended up where it was, in the state it was, and I'll have no choice but to believe you.

Just show me the credible evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events. Can you do that for me?

How many times do I have to ask?

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish
Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

YES or NO?

You asked me what I am SAYING, I am telling you what I am SAYING.

I am SAYING that eyewitness testimony gathered some 7 years after an event by a bunch of amateur investigators with no credentials is notoriously unreliable.

That doesn’t answer the question because it is an irrelevant thesis

Do you understand what I am SAYING now JPhish? Would remedial English help you understand what I am SAYING, JPhish?

loaded question try logic next time.

I'm very sure of my answer, . -

You still have not given a yes or no answer to the actual question. Is you’re answer “Nope”? That is the closest thing to a valid response you have given. Everything else has been an argument from ignorance.

-but unless you can show me the credible evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events there won't be a "later on".

you are demanding negative proof. no dice for you.

Answer the question.

Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

[edit on 12/14/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by discombobulator
reply to post by JPhish

 

Come on JPhish, you want to convince me that something else happened at the Pentagon,

Where on earth did you get that idea?

just show me the credible evidence that supports how Lloyde's cab ended up where it was, in the state it was, and I'll have no choice but to believe you.

You’re demanding negative proof again.

Just show me the credible evidence that supports an alternative sequence of events. Can you do that for me?

I don’t have to because that’s an argument from ignorance.

How many times do I have to ask?

How many times must you ask an illogical question until you’ll receive an answer?

It’s a trick question; the answer is, until you find someone naïve enough to entertain an illogical argument.

[edit on 12/14/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish

Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

Ow. That hurt my eyes...twice.

Instead of changing the font size, and asking inane questions, help an old guy out and explain to me, and the audience, just where Lloyd England made that claim.

Questions: Is he the cab driver? The one with a hole in his windscreen?

Was his car on a highway, near the Pentagon on the morning of 11 September? Stopped on the road? With a smashed windshield?

Was he anywhere near the intersection of Route 27 and Route 244, where they meet near the pentagon?

Did he drive his car away from the scene where it sustained damage? Was it towed later?

Do YOU think he is an unreliable witness? If so, why, or if not, why not?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish

 

Lloyde England said that he was no where near the light-poles when it happened. Are you saying that Lloyde is an unreliable witness?

Ow. That hurt my eyes...twice.

Instead of changing the font size, and asking inane questions,

There’s nothing inane about my question.

help an old guy out and explain to me, and the audience, just where Lloyd England made that claim.

He said that he was north of the cigto gas station when “it happened”. That is no where near the light poles. His testimonies

Questions: Is he the cab driver? The one with a hole in his windscreen?

Yes

Was his car on a highway, near the Pentagon on the morning of 11 September? Stopped on the road? With a smashed windshield?

Not according to the OS.

Was he anywhere near the intersection of Route 27 and Route 244, where they meet near the pentagon?

Who are the they you are referring to?

Did he drive his car away from the scene where it sustained damage? Was it towed later?

Relevancy?

Do YOU think he is an unreliable witness? If so, why, or if not, why not?

That’s not a pertinent question to ask me. It was discombobulator who stated that Llyoddes testimony is his reason for believing the cab was impaled by a light-pole; not I.

[edit on 12/14/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


I'm late to this party, so I'm catching up...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Was he anywhere near the intersection of Route 27 and Route 244, where they meet near the pentagon?

Originally posted by JPhish
Who are the they you are referring to?

Answer: By they I was referring to the objects known as Route 27 and Route 244. Indefinite article, not pronoun.

I asked because I've seen 'a' photo of the damaged cab, not sure when it was taken. I assumed that the cab had not been moved, at the time the photo was snapped. Meaning, I infer that the cab was driving along, sustained damage, and skidded to a stop. Is that a fair assessment?

Hence....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Did he drive his car away from the scene where it sustained damage? Was it towed later?

Originally posted by JPhish
Relevancy?

Hope that answers your 'relevancy?' query.

I think you mentioned that Lloyd mentioned something about being "North" of the Citgo gas station (since renamed, you are aware?).

I live here, so I am quite familiar with the roadways, and the orientation of the terrain.

Is everyone aware that Route 244 (Columbia Pike) loops around, North of the former Citgo gas station, (becoming S. Columbia Pike) before entering the exchange where it meets Route 27? That interchange is a three-leaf 'cloverleaf'...that is where the poles were (are).

Surely it is plausible that Lloyd was driving, might have been North of Citgo at one time...then encountered the lightpole???
_________________________________________________________
tags




[edit on 14 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

I know you love your little logic nuggets Jphish, but can you explain to me why asking for proof that the Pentagon scene was tampered with is "demanding negative proof"?

You're claiming that shadowy forces faked an aeroplane's descent towards the Pentagon. According to you it actually happened, so it shouldn't be too hard to provide evidence for it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I know you love your little logic nuggets Jphish, but can you explain to me why asking for proof that the Pentagon scene was tampered with is "demanding negative proof"?

You're claiming that shadowy forces faked an aeroplane's descent towards the Pentagon. According to you it actually happened, so it shouldn't be too hard to provide evidence for it.

From what I can make out of the abuse and torture of logic here is that verification of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001, hinges on some confused videotaped remarks made by a taxi driver.

Inferred is that observed and analyzed material evidence of a 90 ton airliner crashed into the Pentagon and DNA verified remains of 60 passengers and crew were all part of a massive deception.

Also that all eyewitness testimony of Flight 77 flying into the Pentagon is mistaken, dishonest or intimidation by malign government agents.

It boils down to an assertion that thousands of ordinary Americans are knowingly accessories or facilitators of an undocumented US govt mass murder operation.

Either that or an aging possibly senile taxi driver years after the fact made inconsistent remarks to a couple of dubious videomakers.


M




[edit on 14-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
From what I can make out of the abuse and torture of logic here is that verification of Flight 77 actually hitting the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001, hinges on some confused videotaped remarks made by a taxi driver.

Maybe that is an important point for some but to believe that the entire conspiracy hinges on that would be to ignore...

Inferred is that observed and analyzed material evidence of a 90 ton airliner crashed into the Pentagon and remains of 60 passengers and crew were all part of a massive deception. Also that all eyewitness testimony of Flight 77 crashing is mistaken, dishonest or intimidation by malign government agents.

That huge mess. How many witnesses saw that crash again, MM? How many actually saw AA77 crash into the Pentagon?

It boils down to an assertion that thousands of ordinary Americans are knowingly accessories or facilitators of an undocumented US govt mass murder operation.

Where do you get thousands from? This is just a cheap debunker trick. What thousands have been implicated?

Either that or an aging possibly senile taxi driver has made a few conflicting remarks to some videomakers.


M

That could be too. Neat how when something backs up your claim, it is thousands of witnesses but when a witness clearly contradicts your claim he is senile or mistaken.

reply to post by JPhish


JPhish

orrect me if I am wrong but what you seem to keep banging on about is what Lloyde told CIT, all two of them, years after the event. I have no doubt they did their best to confuse the old boy.

However, as there are photos of Lloyde, his damaged cab, and the lightpoles taken on 9/11/01, from which his position is obvious, I am not clear what point you are making.

Why aren't you similarly bothered about Sgt Lagasse failing to remember where he was when CIT spoke to him years later ?

Originally posted by Lillydale
That huge mess. How many witnesses saw that crash again, MM? How many actually saw AA77 crash into the Pentagon?

Let's start with Sean Boger, Chadwick Brooks and William Lagasse.

We'll move on from there once you've explained to me why those three dudes are lying.

reply to K J Gunderson's post #2499

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
I think I understand what Michael understood better than you do.

I know. I forgot that you can magically read things you do not have access to and that gives you great insight into things you do not have all the facts of.

I will grant you that perhaps there is something in those U2U's that would allow you to know if Michael finally got what you were accusing him of. What I'm trying to say, however, is that from all the evidence I have seen in this forum, it seems clear to me that he never understood. I even tried to get him up to speed on why you were accusing him of lying, but he never responded to my post.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
If you want to interfere in things that are on the board simply because they are on the board then you should try actually reading everything available to you on the subject.

First, I don't think intervening when one person is calling another a liar in a public forum should be seen as interference; if anything, I'd think it's akin to a referee making sure things don't get too out of hand.

Secondly, I think I've read quite enough on this subject without looking for more, thanks. If you think there's something I missed though, by all means feel free to point it out.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You yourself have traded back and forth between different threads just to try and make this argument

The reason I responded to some of this in another thread is because it has nothing to do with CIT's independent investigation. However, a super moderator has now decreed that it can't continue in the "Dealing with 9/11 Madness" thread, and you've managed to bring it up here again despite the fact that the only thing you had to work with was my view of Lloyd England's statements (which is certainly on topic). Don't get me wrong, I don't mind addressing this issue; I think it should be addressed. I just wish there were a better place for it.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
and yet you admit you are not willing to even read other threads to see if you might have missed part of this.

I don't see a problem with you excerpting from any ATS post that Michael has made in order to prove that he has lied. But I'm not going to do your homework for you; you believe that Michael has lied? Let's see the evidence.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by scott3x
I've already gone over this with Lilly; when Michael said he'd been ignoring you, he hadn't responded to anything you'd said in this thread for 2 days.

I know you have and you are wrong.

No, I'm right. The reason I know I'm right is that I've been tracking posts by keeping a thread tree, starting from page 110 up until this page. I suggest you review my post #2352.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Although I did not go back and look at the dates because the passage of time does not matter...

Why not just say that it doesn't matter if Michael ignored you for 2 days and be done with it? Atleast then you'd be admitting that he did, in fact, make no response to any post of yours for 2 days before he said that he'd been ignoring your posts.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
in the same time that MM was supposedly ignoring my posts, he was replying to them.

He said he -had- been ignoring your posts. Clearly, by telling you this, he had stopped doing so.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Did he eventually take a break? Yes, well after replying to me several times as well as the U2U exchange that is even mentioned in one of those posts that apparently never came during that time I was being ignored, even though it exists because I can read it still.

I've lost you here. If you want to get technical, link to the posts in question.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Look, you are purposely missing it. I have already gone over this with you, why do you suppose you are fighting this fight for someone else whom you think is so capable of being so honest and understanding what is going on so well?

I'm doing this because I don't think anyone deserves to be falsely accused of lying. Furthermore, if there are no repercussions for calling someone a liar without providing evidence, anyone can do it. I also happen to know from personal experience that being labelled a liar can have fairly strong consequences.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I have all the facts. MM has all the facts.

Perhaps this is true. I haven't seen the evidence that this is true, though.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
You have decided not to look at all the facts.

I have decided that you've spent a great deal of time trying to persuade me that you have all the facts, without actually presenting them. Or stating that I should go look for the evidence that would make your case. It reminds me of many official story supporters, actually.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
If you want to put your two cents in, you should really get all your facts.

Let's imagine, for a moment, that we were in a court of law, instead of an internet forum where unsubstantiated accusations run wild on a rather frequent basis. Since you accused Michael of lying, you'd be the prosecution. Let's see how you handled your case:

For starters, you failed to provide evidence that Michael had lied. I called you on it. To cover for this deficiency in your case, you then proceeded to say various things:
1- It didn't concern me.
2- Attempted to blur the line between being wrong, which I fully acknowledge Michael was, with being deceitful.
3- Attempted to argue that because Michael didn't admit he was wrong, he was being deceitful. When that didn't work...
4- You had evidence that you couldn't share; I should simply take your word for it.

And then there was this classic:
5- I should go looking for your evidence.

If you were in a court of law, your case would have been thrown out. But we're in an internet forum, where such things can drag on for quite some time.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to pteridine's post #2500

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by scott3x
I disagree strongly with that. What evidence are you referring to?

All of the physical evidence and the majority of witnesses.

Can you state what physical evidence you find to be credible?

Originally posted by pteridine
The only thing alarming about the flyover theory is that some poor souls actually believe it.

I think we should agree to disagree on this for now.

reply to post by scott3x


Credible evidence for AA77 striking the Pentagon:
Physical damage and fuel fire.
Aircraft parts consistent with the aircraft.
Recovered human remains with DNA testing verifying identities.
No evidence of high explosives, evidence planting, or collusion.

Lack of alternate explanations consistent with the above.

reply to Pilgrum's post #2502, Part 1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Re the missing footpeg on the camera mast:

Originally posted by scott3x
Sorry, that's not an issue I've dealt with before and honestly there's only so many details I want to deal with.

I feel every detail needs to be examined many many times in order to put together a valid idea of what happened with particular emphasis on the physical evidence because every piece provides a frozen moment that doesn't change over time unlike less tangible things like witness accounts.

You made mention of the downed poles earlier that came across as if you believe the poles were only snapped off at the frangible bases which is not the case. They were actually severed completely at the point of wing contact as well which is the reason for them falling the way they did not far from their original location. I don't have a pic uploaded to post just now but they abound here and everywhere so it shouldn't be too hard to find a few.

Alright, let's say that this is true. It still doesn't explain many of the points raised in the following thread I started over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth that I've mentioned before:

"word Has It..." (traffic Camera Pole "kissed" By Wing)

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by scott3x
I think I'm relatively unbiased, but I don't think that we should get into a 'you're biased' discussion. I think we should stick to the evidence.

Apologies for a bad arrangement of words there. I wasn't saying you're biased, just that your sources are biased toward supporting their theory seemingly regardless of whether it's right or wrong.

I think that CIT and PFT are for the most part fairly objective in their analysis. But if you find that there was any flaw(s) in their logic, feel free to point them out.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Re the total lack of physical evidence in support of the flyover:

Originally posted by scott3x
Ofcourse there is. For a start, there's the above thread I just pointed you towards. There's also the thread on Lloyd's light pole that I've mentioned previously. I found another thread concerning the light pole, this one from SPreston, who I have found has some some really good investigative work here at ATS:

What I saw there is an attempt to convert physical evidence into a new substance I'll call 'anti-evidence' but it does not change the evidence itself and certainly doesn't generate evidence of the opposite polarity.

I think a simple way of stating my own view is that it shows that the official theory "evidence" in relation to the plane crashing into the pentagon has so many holes in it. The flyover theory, by comparison, is much more solid, as it is able to account for much more than the official theory.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Lloyd is a good example: He and his cab were there (surely indisputable)

It's not indisputable; Lloyd himself disputed it. However, I think it's safe to say that Lloyd's objections notwithstanding, the photographic evidence places him at the scene of the crime.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
...The cab has damage consistant with his account (windshield, dash, front and rear seats) and the pole is right there with the cab which he states was pulled out of the cab after it came to a standstill.

I was just looking over another thread that I think I mentioned here that I started over at CIT, Lloyd's light pole issue. I had started it because I had been arguing with a truther of the 'Hoffmanite' persuasion, that is, a truther who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, but that the pentaplane did in fact crash into the pentagon. He had raised some points I didn't know how to counter, so I started that thread in CIT's forum. CIT's Craig Ranke responded with a post that I didn't quite understand at the time but after reviewing it, I believe I now do. This is what he said:

The context of the problem requires a 90 ton Boeing traveling 535 mph:

To spear the bent LIGHTER end of the pole through the windshield WITHOUT impaling the back seat with the added kinetic energy of the car traveling about 40 mph in the opposite direction.

And for the car to spin out sideways on the road with about 75% of the heavy end of the pole STILL sticking out over the hood as it came to a stop.

All without damaging the hood at all.

What do you think would happen to the pole as the car went from 40 mph to a sliding sideways stop?

The windshield frame was undamaged as well.

The pole was tapered so if about 30 out of 40 feet of the HEAVY end was outside of the cab the entire center of gravity of the pole would be outside of the cab as well.

At the time, I answered his question by stating "Honestly, I don't know". He responded by stating:

Really?

Try to imagine it.

I can tell you for sure what it wouldn't do.

It wouldn't stay miraculously suspended over the hood in midair even after the car came to a stop.

What it would do is go flying out of the car unless it had basically demolished the entire thing into a big twisted ball of metal and light pole which is actually the most likely scenario.

The notion that it wouldn't shift inside the window while the hole stayed centralized and the windshield frame remained intact all as the car skidded to a sideways stop is not a viable or logical consideration in the least.